[2023] KEBPRT 1209 (KLR)
The Tribunal found that the tenant had provided sufficient evidence, including invoices and receipts, demonstrating that it undertook and completed the restoration of the premises as required by the consent order. The landlord, in contrast, failed to provide evidence of actual expenditure on renovations. The...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2023] KEBPRT 1209 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Woody Automobile Limited; Respondent: Carnation Properties Limited
- Court
- Business Premises Rent Tribunal
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Tribunal Case 560 of 2020
- Procedural Posture
- Tribunal Case / Ruling
- Outcome
- Tenant's claim for refund of deposit and release of bullet proof glass allowed.
- Judges
- CN Mugambi
- Legal Topics
- Commercial Leases, Security Deposit Refund, Restoration of Premises
- Source Language
- en
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Woody Automobile Limited
Applicant
Carnation Properties Limited
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Tribunal Case / Ruling
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the tenant restored the premises to its original condition as required by the consent order.
- 2 Whether the tenant is entitled to a refund of the deposit held by the landlord.
- 3 Whether the landlord is obligated to release the tenant's bullet proof glass.
Ratio Decidendi
The Tribunal found that the tenant had provided sufficient evidence, including invoices and receipts, demonstrating that it undertook and completed the restoration of the premises as required by the consent order. The landlord, in contrast, failed to provide evidence of actual expenditure on renovations. The Tribunal was unable to conclusively determine from the inspection who performed certain works, but the only visible paint was white, which the tenant claimed to have applied, and the ceiling was in good condition. The Tribunal was satisfied that the tenant had met its obligations and was therefore entitled to a refund of the deposit and the release of the bullet proof glass left on...
Court Disposition
Tenant's claim for refund of deposit and release of bullet proof glass allowed.
Orders
- The landlord shall refund the tenant's deposit of Kshs 103,448.30 within seven days.
- The landlord shall release the tenant's bullet proof glass.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
21 paragraphs
Woody Automobile Limited v Carnation Properties Limited (Tribunal Case 560 of 2020) [2023] KEBPRT 1209 (KLR) (8 September 2023) (Ruling)
Neutral citation: [2023] KEBPRT 1209 (KLR)
Republic of Kenya
In the Business Premises Rent Tribunal
Tribunal Case 560 of 2020
CN Mugambi, Chair
September 8, 2023
Between
Woody Automobile Limited
Tenant
and
Carnation Properties Limited
Landlord
Ruling
1. The dispute between the parties herein is as to the refund of the deposit paid by the tenant and as to whether the tenant fully restored the suit premises to its original position. This requirement arose out of consent orders recorded on 7. 7.2020, where the parties consented as follows:-a.That the tenant shall pay three months rent being Kshs 180,000/= being the rent for March, April and May 2020 on or before 15th July 2020. b.The tenant shall restore the premises to its original position/condition upon which the landlord shall refund the tenant’s deposit of Kshs 103,448. 30/= within seven days of restoration.c.The tenant shall remove all its fittings.d.Failure to comply on either side, execution to issue.e.Mention on 4. 8.2020 to confirm compliance.
2. On 20. 5.2021, when the matter was eventually mentioned, counsel for the tenant complained that the landlord had declined to release his client’s deposit on allegations that the premises has not been restored. On his part, Counsel for the landlord argued that it is the landlord who restored the premises after the tenant failed to do so. The court then ordered both parties to file affidavits and an inspection report was also ordered.
3. The tribunal eventually visited the suit premises on 7. 9.2021 and made the following notes on the visit:a.That the Tribunal was unable to tell if indeed it was the tenant who painted the premises blue.b.That it was not clear who between the parties was telling the court the truth.c.That the only visible paint is white and which the tenant claims he is the one who applied.d.The ceiling is in good condition, white colour which the tenant alleges to have applied.e.That the premises has since been taken over by another tenant.
4. The tenant in his affidavit sworn on 7. 1.2022 has stated that he incurred a total of Kshs 52,700/= in restoring the premises. He has annexed the quotation, invoices and receipts as evidence of payment of the said money. he has also stated in his affidavit that a day before the contractors finished their works, representatives of the landlord confirmed that they had no issues with the work progress. The tenant has also said that he left behind his bullet proof glass protection worth Kshs 25,000/=. I have not seen any evidence of this value given to the bullet proof glass anywhere in the affidavit.
5. The landlord on his part has only annexed quotations to his affidavit. There is no evidence of actual expenditures shown in the renovation of the premises.
6. Consequently, I am satisfied that the tenant is the one who renovated the premises and is therefore entitled to the refund of the deposit held by the landlord.The landlord is also to release the tenant’s bullet proof glass.
RULING DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED VIRTUALLY THIS 8TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2023. HON. CYPRIAN MUGAMBICHAIRPERSON8. 9.2023In the absence of the parties